definitely. i was so totally confused that even i was screwing it up. i even forgot to correct him like i said i would. i was really frazzled there, since nothing was making cents. but that is just my two sense.
No, it is that if it can't be proven wrong, then that leaves that there is then the possibilty of the unknown. Otherwise known as having faith. You, of course, seem to continue to keep going in circles, never really answering any question, but rather ridiculing the questioner.
what? yes, there is unknown. that is not the same as faith. i accept that there are things that are unknown. man, i dunno how many more times i can repeat this. only shaqazoolu seems to be able to comprehend it.
i have said that here basically nonstop. i even devoted a huge part of the thread to it, trying to correct the definition of atheism so people understand it. remember, my claim was that virtually every atheist in the world agrees that god is possible. anything is possible. but that doent mean i believe in anything anyone is willing to say out loud. in fact, because of the confusion i am gonna start a thread about this.
Like I said, I somehow missed it. I have no problem with someone that doesn't believe or have faith. My problem was that I was under the impression that you were closed to the possibility. Based on your post that was the message I was getting.
I am not claiming to know everything, only that I have hunches and feelings and attempt to understand and DON'T UTTERLY BLOW OFF AND MOCK what a large segment of Earth's population feels a connection to. If so many people feel a connection to it, why do you feel so strongly that they are more foolish than you and that it is a waste of time to even consider it? You have this one point of view and are sticking dogmatically to it. In athropology, ethnocentrism is frowned upon because it causes the obeserver to miss relevant and intriguing data. It seems to me that egocentrism can have a similar effect. I respect that you haven't simply swallowed a religion's line, but in not doing so you have overreacted and seem almost hostile to anything spiritual/religious, at the expense of potential insight into the world it might have that you haven't yet considered. You are smart enough to consider religion critically without becoming brainwashed by it, there is no need to flinch at its mention. I'd say all major religions are for contentment, peace, love, happiness, all that. If some people who claim a religion but don't abide by its principles do wrong, how can you hold the religion to blame? The religion told them not to do it. If I killed someone, would it be my parent's fault because I've taken their last name and consider myself a part of the family? I do try to make a distinction between spirituality and religion because religions are more manmade and political than I care for. If you are talking about religion rather than spirituality, I can see where you are coming from.
Do you really not see it? Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous Pronunciation: \ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs, -yü-əs-\ Function: adjective Date: 1655 : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
reality is not decided by polling. i truly dont give a damn how many people think something. at no point in history have the vast majority of people not believed in crazy myths. just because the current myths are modern doesnt make them any more true. maybe you are the one who lacks perspective.
